What Weathermen Know About Climate Change

June 26, 2010
By Emilie Lorditch

Credit: NOAA

Climate change is a topic that impacts the weather not only globally, but also locally. While some people may be concerned about the melting ice sheets at the far corners of the Earth, what most really want to know is "how will global warming affect me?" -- and they often turn to their local weatherperson to find out.

A study released today study by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication in Fairfax, Va., showed that 27 percent of broadcast meteorologists -- who are, according to the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, "often the most visible representatives of science in U.S. households" -- believe that global warming is a scam.

According to the National Science Foundation’s 2010 Science and Engineering Indicators, television is the number one source the public turns to for information about science and technology. Broadcast meteorologists are often the only people at TV news stations with a science background. But the education and experience of those who deliver news about the weather varies dramatically.

"In television, when it comes to weather, there is an extremely wide range of education sets," said Jim Gandy, chief meteorologist at WLTX-TV in Columbia, S.C. "Some have bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and Ph.D.'s, but you also have some without."

When a topic such as climate change comes up in the news, broadcast meteorologists -- no matter what their educational background -- are often thrust into the spotlight. Some embrace the opportunity and try to educate their audiences on the science, while others avoid it at all costs.

"People are uninformed and believe climate change is a hoax," said Gandy. "I occasionally respond to comments posted on our station's website, but you better know your science and get your facts straight before you post on my website."

Some meteorologists surveyed said that there is a lot of conflicting information about climate change.

"Science is about questioning things and I think we should all be in the middle, question the information," said Brad Sowder, First Alert Meteorologist at KOAA-TV in Colorado Springs, Colo. "I have been more on the side of a skeptic."

Another weathercaster who wanted to remain anonymous felt that the topic of climate change is less about the science and more about politics. "Personally, I think that global warming is a political issue, and I feel like it is safer to stay out of it," he said.

The survey also found that 62 percent of broadcast meteorologists want to report more on climate change.

"We have a good comprehensive look at television weathercasters from this survey," said Kris Wilson, a senior lecturer with the School of Journalism at University of Texas at Austin and one of the lead investigators of the survey.

Beginning in July, the next phase of the National Science Foundation-funded study will begin. A test case at Gandy’s station will include 30-second segments in some of the weathercasts to educate viewers about climate change.

"It will be a year-long effort using our resources on-air and on the Internet in an effort to educate the public about climate change past, present, and future," said Gandy. "I wish the public knew how difficult it is to have knowledge of climate science. Simply being a meteorologist is not enough, and this is a mistake that some television meteorologists make."

A new study from George Mason University reveals that while a majority of U.S. health department directors believe their city or county will have serious public health problems as a result of climate change within the next ...

Worried about climate change and want to learn more? You probably aren't watching television then. A new study by George Mason University Communication Professor Xiaoquan Zhao suggests that watching television has no significant ...

While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change ...

Recommended for you

Five million years ago, the Colorado River met the Gulf of California near the present-day desert town of Blythe, California. The evidence, say University of Oregon geologists, is in the sedimentary rocks exposed at the edges ...

Pressure, temperature and fluid composition play an important role in the amount of metals and other chemicals found in wastewaters from hydraulically fractured gas reservoirs, according to Penn State researchers.

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and Google Switzerland has combined historical data with modern mapping engines to produce high-resolution maps of the world's surface ...

The ice sheet covering Greenland is four times bigger than California—and holds enough water to raise global sea-level more than twenty feet if most of it were to melt. Today, sea levels are rising and the melting of Greenland ...

@Gonzaga - First where did the data come from? How was it collected? Is it raw or adjusted? If adjusted, how and why? Is the method of collection consistent from place to place? How many locations are there? How many are located in heat islands that have grown since 1885? How has this been corrected for? How? How many are at sea? And so on and so on and.......

THe Earth has warmed and cooled and warmed since the little ice age ended ca. 1800.GW is a very complicated issue but if the so called expert scientists don't operate w/ total transparency so that their work can be replicated (this is how real science works - "consensus" is for layman) then we will never get to the bottom of this AND we will be scammed by the politicians and charlatans.

We have had the warmest first 6 months of the year in record in Connecticut (Jan-June)

I have ever seen such lushness to trees and gardens here so early the warmth, C02 and heavy precipitation have helped.

To the climate change deniers- we can only hope that the almost perfect correlation between CO2 levels over the last 15 million years and global climate/temperatures is a hoax - cuz if it is not- we are in deep trouble as a species.

@Sleepership - You are absolutely correct, there IS a direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature for the past 15 million years, i.e. the data shows that CO2 always TRAILED temperature. That delta appears to be ca. 800 yrs.

When meteorologists are threatened with losing their job, most will toe the line."The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming."

Deatopmg, I'm a little curious as to what you're getting at here. I know you post here reasonably often, and so I'm SURE that someone has told you that climatologists are well aware of this, and they have never argued that carbon dioxide leads ice age temperature in the first place; carbon dioxide levels are considered to be part of a positive feedback effect where the ice ages are concerned, and act to amplify an initial (small) change in temperature brought about by the Milankovitch cycles.

Bearing that in mind...again, what are you getting at? Unless you can show me a situation in the past where temperatures rose dramatically and then stopped rising (for whatever reason) once carbon dioxide began to go up (showing that carbon dioxide really doesn't affect temperature, and that CO2 levels are only an effect of temperature shifts, not a cause), then your argument doesn't seem to hold much water.

Ronan: Thanks for trying to add a little science. Let me address your question to Deatopmg. He has heard the fact that CO2 normally follows heating and is a positive feedback mechanism (because I have told him this before). I have also pointed out that it is unique that humans can drive up CO2 prior to heating which then starts the feedback. He has chosen to ignore that and cling to the idea that if CO2 followed warming in the past then it negates the idea of AGW (although I am not sure why he even rationalizes that). He, and a number of other deniers, always come back to this idea of leading versus lagging even though it has been explained to them. My guess is that they are just trying to blow smoke to influence those who don't know the science. He is, obviously, not going to listen to anyone and has his mind made up. He should be referred to as a Troll (for trolling for the uneducated).

marjon: I think you are asking the wrong question. There are uncertainties associated with every measurement and estimation in every branch of science. In the case of climatology, every measurement and estimation has an uncertainty associated with it. So, the responsible thing for any climate scientist to do is list the uncertainty of each parameter in their parameter space for their study. They then have to statistically combine the uncertainties of each measurement. In that case each paper should have a specific uncertainty for that parameter space. What should happen is we should see uncertainties in each paper. If you don't, then the paper is suspect. What I was pointing out is that there are papers with uncertainties associated with the pages on arctic sea ice. If you want uncertainties for other issues and you can't find them you are not looking at scientific papers, rather the popular literature - which is a bad idea from either side of the issue.

"The trend expected from CO2 climate forcing is 0.070g &#65533;C/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g~1. Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: &#65533;[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.&#65533;"http://arxiv.org/...0581.pdfHere is a scientific paper discussing uncertainty.

marjon: I read the paper you put up as "an example of determining uncertainty" and it leaves me trying to understand how you could think the paper would be a good example. I must be misinterpreting the point you are trying to make. Are you saying this is a seminal paper that uses applied statistics to debunk the idea of CO2 forcing warming? That was not present at all in the paper at the end of your URL.

"The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming."

Most "weathermen" are attractive women with a degree in journalism, not science. Most weathermen don't know jack about climate.

Cue the morons who'll toss out several weather personalities that have science degrees showing exception to the majority rule.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.